Now, two years after taking office, after holding a 59-seat majority for much of that time, the President has finally decided to wade into this thicket with a letter to the Senate, asking for the pretty-please confirmation of his judicial nominees.

Meanwhile, the Senate needs to take a break. Passing a bill for state fiscal aid and confirming a Supreme Court justice in one day? That’s breakneck speed! Somebody get them a six-week recess, stat! Oh wait. . . .

In his remarks announcing his support, Graham said that “There’s plenty of reasons for a conservative to vote no, but there are plenty of reasons for a conservative to vote yes,” and while he didn’t agree with Kagan’s judicial philosophy, he felt duty-bound to support the nomination because of Presidential prerogative.

I can’t believe how muted the response has been to a Supreme Court nomination. It’s been the most invisible one I can remember in my lifetime. Obviously there have been other major issues that have cropped up and overshadowed the nomination, but Kagan seems to have a knack to be so inoffensive and low-profile as to engender almost no response.

Kagan has a quintessential Upper West Side liberal pedigree, and within her writings you can pick out some hints of that – working for Liz Holtzman for Congress in 1980, her article on “Presidential Administration”, her opposition to don’t ask don’t tell, her college thesis on the rise of socialism (which should in no way be construed as anything but an academic review of the subject, actually). There are also warning signs, such as her writings on the First Amendment, her diversity record at Harvard law, her support of expansive executive power in the war on terror as Solicitor General and in her previous confirmation hearing.

One positive feature (OK, this isn’t so positive) of a Supreme Court fight is that the formidable Supreme Court commentator cottage industry gets to ramp up again. Conservative groups raise a mint off a Court fight; most of it goes to enrich movement conservatives and little else. So now we get to see folks like [...]

John Paul Stevens didn’t really break any news when he revealed this weekend that he would retire sometime within Barack Obama’s term. Thoughts of retirement and being 89 years old go together, and anyway Stevens hasn’t hired enough law clerks for the next court session. What is new is the speculation on replacements for Stevens, which has settled on the Solicitor General and two federal appeals court judges.

You’re not going to believe this, but Senate Republicans don’t like an Obama appointment and say he’s beyond the mainstream. I know, it’s crazy.